[SATLUG] Laser printers can pollute more than tobacco smoke

[herb cee]

Ernest de Leon wrote:
> Well that all depends on how you quantify easy.  If you are speaking
> strictly of the odor and possible nasal reaction, then I could see where it
> would be easier to handle laser printer emissions.  If you are speaking of
> long term health effects, however, in a situation where the laser printer
> emissions *may* pollute more than second hand tobacco smoke, then the choice
> is not so obvious.  Cyanide and natural gas, after all, are odorless, but I
> wouldn't say that I would choose exposure to either over exposure to second
> hand tobacco smoke.  I am not defending tobacco smoke at all.  I have very
> sensitive allergies and I absolutely cannot stand tobacco smoke or the
> after-smell that the American Lung Cancer Association drags into the
> building consistently.  I was more than elated when they banned smoking in
> just about all public locations.  I will be even happier when employers ban
> the use of tobacco during work hours period.
>
> Ernest
>
> On 8/1/07, Charles Mims <chmims at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> If given a choice whether to stay in a room with a smoker or
>> a laser printer I think the choice would be easy.
>>
>> On 8/1/07, M K Ramadoss <mkr777 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> In a recent study, it was found that some of the laser printers are
>>> polluting worse than tobacco smoke. Here are the results: For the full
>>> article, just Google.
>>> ==================================
>>>
>>> Printer tests showed levels of ultra-fine particle pollution:
>>>
>>> High-level emitters
>>>
>>> HP Color LaserJet 4650dn
>>>
>>> HP Color LaserJet 5550dtn
>>>
>>> HP Color LaserJet 8550N
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 1320N
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 1320n
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 2420dn
>>>
>>> *HP LaserJet 4200dtn
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 4250n (old cartridge)
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 4250n (new cartridge)
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 5(a) (further study needed)
>>>
>>> *HP LaserJet 8000DN
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 8150N
>>>
>>> Toshiba Studio 450
>>>
>>> Mid-level emitters
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 1020
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 4200dtn
>>>
>>> Low-level emitters
>>>
>>> Canon IRC6800
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 5M
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 9000dn
>>>
>>> Ricoh CL3000DN
>>>
>>> Non-emitters
>>>
>>> HP Color LaserJet 4550DN
>>>
>>> HP Color LaserJet 8500DN
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 2200DN
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 2300dtn
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 4 plus
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 4000N
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 4000TN
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 4050N
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 4050TN
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 4si
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 5(b) (further study needed)
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 5000n
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 5100tn
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 5N
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 5si
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 5si/NX
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 8000DN
>>>
>>> HP LaserJet 8150DN
>>>
>>> Ricoh Aficio 2022
>>>
>>> Ricoh Aficio 3045
>>>
>>> Ricoh Aficio 3245C
>>>
>>> Ricoh Aficio CC3000DN
>>>
>>> Toshiba Studio 350
>>>
>>> *possible high emitter
>>>
>>> ================
>>>
>>> mkr
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SATLUG mailing list
>>> SATLUG at satlug.org
>>> http://alamo.satlug.org/mailman/listinfo/satlug to unsubscribe
>>> Powered by Rackspace (www.rackspace.com)
>>>
>>>       
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> SATLUG mailing list
>> SATLUG at satlug.org
>> http://alamo.satlug.org/mailman/listinfo/satlug to unsubscribe
>> Powered by Rackspace (www.rackspace.com)
>>
>>     
I know I should just keep quiet but since this thread has continued and 
since I am the village contrary and curmudgeon ... I read the article 
and it came from an "accidental discovery" in Australia and of dozens of 
polluting sources could have been chosen, only tobacco smoke was chosen 
to compare. It also pops up at the very time when the Tobacco industry 
is spending billions trying to convince the entire world that 'smoking 
has benefit and is not so bad' here is a good example:
http://journeytoforever.org/fyi_previous3.html#240801

I should also shut up with that but.... just look up and observe that 
when was the last time you saw those wonderful days when the sky was so 
deep azure blue near aquamarine, I can tell you it was pre 1996 when 
strange jet-trails suddenly appeared that were called longer-lasting 
con-trails. Look up the definition and cause of contrails and you find 
that they can only exist for a few seconds and these trails last all day 
spreading out and have accumulated to the point that we no longer have a 
deep blue sky just the pale silvery tones, I have painted thousands of 
sunsets and those marvelous colors and contours are also gone.

Should you not be concerned about the white powder that over 400 
military tanker jets are spraying 24/7 into the air at less than 5miles 
up. Why will no one talk about it or answer any questions about this? 
The effect in the sky is very visible, do you not think that if this was 
good for you and I and your children the Pols would certainly be telling 
you how wonderful it is? Why are over 500 tanker jets in operation there 
is no air war anywhere. Guess I will stop here although there are many 
more Why's.

Sorry to soap box here but I just could not resist I think we are 
undergoing intentional pollution on a grand scale. If you trouble 
yourself to investigate this you will find it matches a plan proposed to 
combat global warming from the sun by Edward Teller (known as 'Father of 
the Hydrogen bomb, died few years back) you can start here.
http://www.weatherwars.info/chemtrails.htm
herb